Quote
zn
Honest speculation requires us to imagine that possibility though.
...
If I'm being honest about my speculation, I'd say it's rooted in the history we have before us. Four years of winning in the NFL commands my respect and, let's call it faith. I believe words matter and McVay's have been consistent for the most part.
But I sense you're asking for more balance than honestly here so I will attempt it. Let's speculate that Kromer and perhaps others have left the organization because of something that's wrong with McVay. At times during games, McVay gets so intense about what he believes is right that his emotion overcomes his civility and other alpha males get bloody in his crosshairs. It's happened plenty to me in business and though I outwardly "take it like a man", inwardly I'm looking for the door when the culprit is just wrong and refuses to consider reason. It's not such a stretch to envision this happening with Kromer. Dare I say, conflict was inevitable because they naturally see offense from different perspectives.
I will take this form of speculation one step further. In his first three years, McVay executed his plan in public discourse with numbing consistency as all problems were on him while the good stuff was a result of the excellence of his players, coaches, and organization. During this time, departures were largely higher profiled opportunities for his subordinates. The notable exceptions were Bones and Phillips.
This year, however, McVay's body language and interviews were noticeably different during and after losses. He was obviously suffering. He had taken more control of the team's structure and the failures became a personal grind he couldn't hide. It's not hard to imagine that behind closed doors, his frustrations affected the team's performance. Was he so consumed with his vision of how things "should be" that he became inflexible or intolerant of how "they truly were"?
By the way, ZN, I'm not suggesting McVay is the only "strong leader" in the NFL. I did say a strong leader sets and executes his vision for the organization and will probably not give up control of that standard in most circumstances.
There, I've indulged an opposing viewpoint as to what might have generated unprecedented defections. I'm not certain the exercise was beneficial, but there it is. I just believe one can be generally positive without being a Pollyanna by sticking to general facts. But when one speculates negatively, specific facts and context should be required or what will be produced is essentially slander. For this reason, I generally speak (and post) positively about people not because I lack a critical eye, but because I believe a higher standard of proof is important when someone labels another negatively.
Your viewpoint and challenges are appreciated, ZN. In a similar way, I personally believe Sean welcomes intelligent debates as well. It's how we grow. Because of this, I believe the force of this offseason turnover is natural and intentional growth as opposed to basic dysfunction.
